Tough job. I don’t envy you.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread
- Thread starter Alfred91
- Start date
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Chattanooga went 8-5 and lost to teams like Furman who went 10-2. Do wins like this beef up Bama’s strength of schedule?
That's the crux of it all.
The CFP process, particularly the sequential ranking and binning, requires subjective decisions about what metrics to use and how to weight those metrics. The overwhelming odds are that more than a few committee members used qualitative, subjective metrics. That process is vulnerable to conscious and unconscious biases.
That easily biased process also ranks the top 6, not just lists them, before considering the tie-breaking criteria.
From the SI article:
3. Ranking step
This is when each selection committee member formally ranks the top-six teams from the listing step. The top-ranked team in each member's poll receives one point. The second-best team receives two points, the third-best three points, and etc.Not for a second do I believe the committee members all ignore the injury when making that ranking list.
So, if they then find FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable, and go to the tie breaking 5 criteria, they're likely reusing criteria that they had the freedom to initially choose to use directly or indirectly.
I simply reject your argument that the committee must have used a rational, unbiased, quantitative, clearly defined procedure because they arrived at the same conclusion you did.
It seems your procedure was to accept the committee's assertion that FSU and Bama were reasonably comparable and then apply the tie breaking criteria.
I also reject that FSU and Bama have reasonably comparable resumes. I accept that that is a subjective judgment, but find the committee's prior rankings this year and in previous seasons to be inconsistent with those resumes being comparable.
I think the committee talked themselves into believing the resumes were reasonably comparable because that then allows them to point to the injury as the justification they needed to keep the premier program and conference of the last decade in.
This is incorrect
The Committee saw them as reasonably comparable. You don’t. That’s fair. It’s your choice.
I saw them as very close with similar resumes, especially after Bama beat UGA. I don’t care about previous rankings.
If you don’t see them as reasonably comparable, FSU is in. And the five criteria are moot.
I get how you arrived at that choice.
For curiosity, what was your final 6 and which ones were reasonably close?
I have some experience with this sort of thing and I can tell you exactly how this works. You guys are overthinking it.
The committee’s job is to pick the best four teams to appear in the CFP.
They all sat down and picked the teams that they believe are the best teams at this point in the season to play in the four team playoff.
They have their own individual agendas and biases and that is why they have 13 members. It helps bring some semblance of a democratic process to selections.
The criteria that the committee uses is set up to do nothing more than provide cover for their decision. That is why there is no weightings or rankings to the criteria. They can use the criteria to create the illusion of objectivity to hide what is nothing more than a subjective decision with a vote at the end.
The committee decided, based largely on the conference championships, that Alabama is a better team than FSU and would be a better draw than FSU and then went about creating the narrative to justify the decision.
Don’t be fooled by thinking the criteria had anything to do with the decision.
In the end, because of the fact that there are thirteen people making the decision, they made the right choice. Alabama right now, is better than FSU without their starting QB and because Texas beat Alabama and manhandled OSU they are in as well.
FSU should really be pissed at ACC Commissioner, Jim Phillips who voted against expanding to a 12 team playoff in 2022. With 12 teams, FSU would certainly have been in.
The committee’s job is to pick the best four teams to appear in the CFP.
They all sat down and picked the teams that they believe are the best teams at this point in the season to play in the four team playoff.
They have their own individual agendas and biases and that is why they have 13 members. It helps bring some semblance of a democratic process to selections.
The criteria that the committee uses is set up to do nothing more than provide cover for their decision. That is why there is no weightings or rankings to the criteria. They can use the criteria to create the illusion of objectivity to hide what is nothing more than a subjective decision with a vote at the end.
The committee decided, based largely on the conference championships, that Alabama is a better team than FSU and would be a better draw than FSU and then went about creating the narrative to justify the decision.
Don’t be fooled by thinking the criteria had anything to do with the decision.
In the end, because of the fact that there are thirteen people making the decision, they made the right choice. Alabama right now, is better than FSU without their starting QB and because Texas beat Alabama and manhandled OSU they are in as well.
FSU should really be pissed at ACC Commissioner, Jim Phillips who voted against expanding to a 12 team playoff in 2022. With 12 teams, FSU would certainly have been in.
I think I remember seeing a photo of your desk. And this makes sense.
This is amazing. When this started, I thought maybe hawg1 had a bead on this whole thing and - while I disagreed with the committee - maybe there was a clear and well-reasoned process.
What has happened since, culminating in these two remarkably insane ****ing posts (above), is that hawg1 has descended into a level of sheer ****ing stupidity that hasn't been witnessed on Allbuffs since BCS's epic drunken rants on chat during the 2008 football season.
"Says they can look at a variety of data. Doesn't say what" while insisting that the committee followed process and protocol. Jesus dude.
The committee can look at a variety of data when selecting the final six. That’s in the Metrics section.
If the teams are deemed comparable, the protocol prescribed 5 criteria to make the choice.
These are two different issues, both in the charter.
Please follow closer.
Okay, as long as they aren't pulling the metrics that they won't share out of a hat, I'm sure we get a valid final six, to then move forward to the very objective 5 criteria.
It's like you're going out of your way to make Leon's point for him.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between your two opinions is that you have faith in the pure intentions of the committee and their application of the mysterious data that they have definitely not pulled out of a hat.
Boulder
Well-Known Member
Anyone who works with statistics and/or models knows you can get any outcome desired if the right inputs and variables are selected. There is a strength of schedule model that favors Alabama and one that favors FSU. There is no way to get a truly neutral model and getting one that is fairly close would require a level of public access that would likely be uncomfortable for stakeholders. Every person on the thirteen-person committee is biased and in the era of the four-team playoff faced the massive design flaw of five power conference champions existing and only four spots being available. This hasn't really been a problem in the past to the same degree since in season loses caused a more clear top four to emerge. Sports are entertainment product just as much as a competition. With that the idea of maximizing revenue, ratings, and the product quality are part of every decision. From that perspective Alabama is the clear choice. A semi final of Alabama and Michigan is a dream come true for the stakeholders after last year with TCU. FSU with a key player missing is a harder marketing sell and one with a greater potential of being an uncompetitive opponent. An undefeated team missing out is hard to see but not surprising.
I don’t know how to respond other than I don’t think you understand the process. Or maybe you are intentionally mixing the issues on what data is used when. Either is OK with me.
Or maybe you are trying to draw Leon in again.
What is the SOS model that favors FSU? Thanks.
Boulder
Well-Known Member
A motivated party could make one. SOS are arbitrary to a degree and the output can be manipulated by changing variable weights as an example. One could also invent a novel variable like number of second-half touchdowns surrendered to top-five opponents to bias the outcome to make FSU win an SOS argument. As the saying goes "All models are wrong, some are useful", that sentiment is both a warning and the method for delivering a biased model. Without outside validation whatever nerds they have doing the models don't have to disclose measures for goodness of fit or the regression function. In other words, the committee can make up the data to fit whatever outcome they want if they try hard enough.
Last edited:
You mentioned one SOS model that favors FSU. I’m not interested in some hypothetical. Which one is it?
I don't understand the process. But, when it comes to selecting the final six, your assertion that they're not just making up the data and also, who knows what data they use doesn't really lead me to believe that you do either.
I understand the process. That’s not in question in my discussions with others.
It's clear that a number of people on this board (ok, well, probably just the one) believe the committee is putting forth a good-faith justification of putting a 1-loss team in over an undefeated P5 conference champ.
I value consistency. I value honesty. The justifications put forth by the committee to me are neither consistent nor honest.
On the contrary, this is only the 2nd time since 1998, when D1/FBS college football decided to try to settle the championship on the field, that a P5 undefeated champ hasn't been given a shot to win the title on the field ('04 Auburn, when undefeated UT and undefeated USC played in the Championship). In fact, if you go back, a team with more losses has NEVER gone into either the BCS championship or CFP over a P5 champ with fewer losses. It's a radical departure from the norms we have come to expect, which I think a few people on this board (ok, maybe just the one) do not properly appreciate.
Undefeated conference champions have been passed over before in favor of teams 1 loss in both the BCS and CFP era, but all of them- '18 and '19 UCF, '17 WMU, '05 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, etc.- were G5 champs. The precedent that the committee has effectively just set is that it's a P2 and G7 now. That's what has a lot of people troubled. This is not all about FSU.
I value consistency. I value honesty. The justifications put forth by the committee to me are neither consistent nor honest.
On the contrary, this is only the 2nd time since 1998, when D1/FBS college football decided to try to settle the championship on the field, that a P5 undefeated champ hasn't been given a shot to win the title on the field ('04 Auburn, when undefeated UT and undefeated USC played in the Championship). In fact, if you go back, a team with more losses has NEVER gone into either the BCS championship or CFP over a P5 champ with fewer losses. It's a radical departure from the norms we have come to expect, which I think a few people on this board (ok, maybe just the one) do not properly appreciate.
Undefeated conference champions have been passed over before in favor of teams 1 loss in both the BCS and CFP era, but all of them- '18 and '19 UCF, '17 WMU, '05 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, etc.- were G5 champs. The precedent that the committee has effectively just set is that it's a P2 and G7 now. That's what has a lot of people troubled. This is not all about FSU.
Last edited:
Not just one. The national media, sports and MSM, is overwhelmingly supportive of the committee's decision.
The Committee has not been consistent. They applied the criteria this year. They explained the two critical decision factors. You disagree. Many of us don’t. Not just me. I note you fail to argue a case for FSU using the criteria.
It is in question.
You have no idea what members use to compile their top 6.
Below you have either an incorrect understanding of the process or you fail to explicate it correctly.
Once they get the top 6, they assign ordinal ranks (using whatever criteria each individual feels is appropriate).
That poll of the committee determines the top 3.
4-6 are held, everyone lists their next 6, the 3 getting most listed are added to 4-6, and now 4-9 are ranked (using whatever criteria committee members want).
Now run that in a loop.
The 5 criteria are only used in the case of nearly comparable teams, and the committee explicitly refers to the criteria as tiebreakers.
Nearly comparable is not explicitly defined. Presumably it could be some threshold for the polling scores, but more likely it's the threshold of 3+ members objecting.
I'm assuming that SI has accurately reported on the process in the article I've already linked.
That process is consistent with what Joel Klatt described on his podcast when talking about his experience in simulated ranking exercises run by the CFP that he participated in.
I meant just on this board- fixed.
That's different than believing it was a decision consistent with prior decisions, arrived at by a transparent process.
Yes. I understand the process.
Incorrect. Others have supported Bama.
Why should anyone put forth an argument for FSU using the criteria. According to you this is the first time it has been used. Doesn't that seem to weird to you - that the committee would put forth criteria as justification when they've ignored that criteria before? And also, seem (as far as I can tell) unwilling to share HOW they used that criteria?